Inks is one of the people lying to Mountian View citizens about the sneaky repeal of rent control. I don't really care if someone is for it or against. The fact that he has worked with special interest groups to deliberately mislead the public so he can get his way is enough for me to know he can't be trusted.

John Inks is one of the local citizens who drafted the Measure-V modification initiative (wrongly and misleadingly, but constantly, attributed to "corporate landlords" by people who don't want voters to think for themselves, at any cost).

He is one of the longtime residents with principled concerns about artificial controls on rental prices and the "unintended" but well-known side effects, especially as implemented in Measure V. Including greatly reduced access for new renters, and reduction of the least-expensive housing (as owners remove it from the market or redevelop it to high-end housing) -- even apart from any question of owners' property rights (I'm not a landlord, and AFAIK, John Inks isn't either). Plenty of local people know about these issues, even if some loud voices try to drown them out.

Yes there is "lying to Mountain View citizens," and no shortage of it has come from supporters of Measure V.

From the article, this says it all:
"During his time on the council, he has opposed tougher gun control laws, increasing the minimum wage, flying the pride flag, and declaring Mountain View as a human rights city... Most recently, Inks has helped advocate for a November ballot measure to weaken the city's rent control law."

With all that's going on in national politics, we have to take a stand on what policies represent local government. Mr. Inks is a nice person, but is out of the local mainstream on too many policies.

From the article but with clarifications in brackets:
"During his [Mr. Inks] time on the council, he has opposed tougher gun control laws, [opposed] increasing the minimum wage, [opposed] flying the pride flag, and [opposed] declaring Mountain View as a human rights city... Most recently, Inks has helped advocate for a November ballot measure to weaken the city's rent control law [yet the measure is being presented as a strengthening of rent control Web Link

Is this what Mountain View wants right now?

... never really hurts the political debate on the Council.

Of all the council candidates that have shown up on my doorstep over the years, John Inks is the only one that didn't lie to my face to get my vote. I can't say the same for those on the council who said they were opposed to the VTA taking over a lane of El Camino for bus use so that the empty buses can get through town faster at the expense of those who have no other choice than to drive to their jobs (I'm speaking to you, Rosenberg and Showalter). I would rather have a principled person I don't always agree with over a candidate whose vote is for sale to the highest bidder.

You may not agree with his positions, but Inks is clear and honest about those positions and his reasoning. I have spoken to him at length about an issue we disagreed about. He listened attentively and respectfully, explained why he had the position he had and we both had a better understanding of the situation when we were done. He is neither condescending nor closed-minded, which is refreshing in a politician. I, for one, think we need more like him.

I'm glad to see Mr. Inks in the race. I hope I will soon be calling him Councilman Inks once again.

"he has opposed tougher gun control laws, increasing the minimum wage, flying the pride flag, and declaring Mountain View as a human rights city." Wow, who can pass up on a chance to put someone like this in office - said nobody ever!

Some people are determined to *define* what they think is "the local mainstream," to exclude anything incompatible with their current personal notions, existing within the limited range or "bubble" of like-minded people who are all ever they talk and listen to. That behavior itself is a characteristic weakness in US politics today. Reaction to it was a major factor why people outside that self-referential "bubble" voted for Trump!

I didn't vote for Trump, but I assure you, many locals don't fall into the narrow party-line thinking illustrated by "Vote No on Inks" comment above. For those voters, it's refreshing to have alternatives like John Inks. Even if we disagree with some of his stands, he's rendered more appealing precisely by not conforming to the narrow, unexamined, "bubble" assumptions of most of those who criticize him in online comments here.

I don't know why Inks wants to be on the council again. He has no original or interesting ideas and, as a libertarian, seems to abstain or be opposed to everything that others propose. Surely we can do better than re-elect the same old dried-up politicians from our past.

Gee, what a ridiculously biased article on Inks!!! I like him, and will vote for him. He is a supporter of individual liberty.

Inks lost my support when he wouldn’t support plastic or styrofoam bans.

Your right to pollute doesn’t trump my right to an earth that outlasts me. And that is precisely what is wrong with “libertarians.” They ONLY think of themselves. As if they live in a bubble.

I am delighted that John Inks is joining the race! John Inks has integrity. He is open and honest about his principles, and his actions as a leader are strongly guided by those principles. FWIW, I feel the same way about Bernie Sanders.

I'll consciously refrain from comparing Mr. Inks to the folks who are running the city now. I'll merely express my hope for significant turnover in the November election.

I saw Inks collecting signatures for the Measure V repeal at Safeway. Say what you will about the repeal ("sneaky" is often used), I give him kudos for standing out there and being ready to represent.

Explain how the Measure V repeal is being done in a honest way?
The Measure V repeal website doesn't even post the text of the repeal. Web Link

The city does: Web Link
Even then, the language of the repeal is intentionally written to mislead people who try to read it. Add to that the paid signature gatherers that are lying to voters every day.

I believe Mr. Inks to be honest in his personal life, but the initiative he is volunteering unpaid for is not honest. An honest effort would be a straight repeal with clear language.

We should all seek a diverse city council. But a city council candidate that is willing to back such an initiative, that refuses to support environmental initiatives, and that refuses to support gun regulations is too much.

Apart from salary and expenses and benefits otherwise reserved for full-time city employees, council members get to decide matters greatly affecting the lives of residents and others. This city is being sold to the highest bidders. That is fine and dandy to Inks who is a devout LIBERTARIAN.
What's more and worse is that Inks has shown by joining the fraudulent rent control repeal that he thinks the end of protecting the perogatives of landlords justifies the means of DECEIVING VOTERS.
Next watch for landlord lacky Michael Kasperzak to run for a sixth time.

Boy, it must be hard raising money with those principles. What a sell out.

I would love to who his campaign donors are. And how much he gets from individuals and from the lobbies he is the poster child of. I'm Libertarian and think the guy is a flake. Libertarians don't practice in misinformation. That is against all our principles.

... Landlords need someone on their side defending their need to maximize their profit.

My humble observation:

John Inks never discloses his income regarding the state election form 700.

I don’t even think he has a job except to be a spokesperson for the CAA.

All I am saying is that it appears he simply sells himself to all the “for profit” organizations.

Just remember that Ayn Rand, the queen of libertarianism was very open that there are no ethics or morals in her philosophy. The Ends always justifies the Means. Just look at the fact she lived her life by cheating on her husband, as well as rejecting the very concept of “corruption”. In her world view, there is no such thing as corruption at all. She was an advocate of objectivism and the centerpiece of objectivism is rational egoism as defined as:

“Rational egoism, the centerpiece of Objectivism, holds that each individual should act in his own best interest and is the proper beneficiary of his own moral action. This principle is the recognition of the fact that in order to live, people must take self-interested action and reap the benefits thereof. Human life requires egoism. (I use “rational egoism” and “egoism” interchangeably for reasons that will become clear.)

Thus, Objectivism rejects the morality of altruism—the idea that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others (whether the poor, the “common good,” “mother nature,” or “God”). Objectivism also rejects the idea that predation—the sacrificing of others for one’s own alleged benefit—can promote one’s life and happiness. And Objectivism rejects hedonism—the idea that being moral consists in acting in whatever manner gives one pleasure (or doing whatever one feels like doing).”

Thus the only person or interest John Inks has is to himself. Does that make him a good candidate to have the power to rule over others in the City of Mountain View?

“Mr. Inks is a nice person, but is out of the local mainstream on too many policies.”. God forbid that we should think for ourselves and vote against the local “mainstream”. Would this be the same mainstream that just named their new school after an illegal immigrant? John Inks has my vote.

Mr Inks is consistent and clear and honest about his principles
which i take to be to maintain 'economic freedom" over all else
including the lost concept of the common good

so practically speaking he initiates very very little
does not have interesting insights
and votes NO on almost everything

he has been called MR NO or John NO
and when you ask him about this he agrees that is
how he translates his principles into action (or inaction)

Please understand?

A libertarianist hold above all things that one’s own interest is above all others.

So putting a libertarian into a government position can be described as an arsonist being put in charge of the fire department. You’re simply putting someone in a position to exploit whatever powers they have in the position they take. And since the “concept” of “corruption” simply does not exist in the mindset of a libertarian. It is considered not “unethical or imorral” but completely acceptable behavior in the “greater good” of a libertarian.

@ TBM

Wow. You really don't know much about libertarians, do you? You compare libertarians to arsonists, but an arsonist seldom burns down their own house, which is your claim. Libertarians tend to be capitalists, which means they believe that every is entitled to the fruits of their labor. What they don't believe is that anyone is entitled to the fruits of the labor of other people. They aren't against safety nets, but they are against freeloading. My parents taught me the same thing.

Personally, I prefer a person who supports the rights of the individual and their autonomy (principles upon which this country was founded, incidentally) to those who attempt to force everyone into their mindset with social engineering and other misguided notions. I object to those who insist that their way is the only way and other voices must not only be ignored, but silenced.

Too many people in this area assume they are the only voice that should exist and all others should be silenced. These same people accuse others of being Nazis and all manner of terrible things. Yet one of the first things the Nazis did was silence opposition. It is not too much to ask that the council have one voice that doesn't sing the same tired tune.

In response to psr
a resident of The Crossings
3 minutes ago
@ TBM

“Wow. You really don't know much about libertarians, do you? You compare libertarians to arsonists, but an arsonist seldom burns down their own house, which is your claim.”

Just look at the White House, it seems to be burning quite well. You said

“Libertarians tend to be capitalists, which means they believe that every is entitled to the fruits of their labor.”

Thus no landlord should get any more rent simply because the labor in the area makes more money. You’re not helping your argument. You said:

“What they don't believe is that anyone is entitled to the fruits of the labor of other people.”

That’s what the landlords want to do, simply because their customers have a higher income. You said:

“They aren't against safety nets, but they are against freeloading. My parents taught me the same thing.”

Unless you can prove that one is “freeloading” you cannot assume they are. Safety nets are all over the place “unemployment insurance” for example. Are you suggesting we do away with it? You also said:

“Personally, I prefer a person who supports the rights of the individual and their autonomy (principles upon which this country was founded, incidentally) to those who attempt to force everyone into their mindset with social engineering and other misguided notions.”

No one is coercing anyone to believe in anything, but public policies must be designed to benefit the citizens and not “investors” especially if they are not living in the City of Mountain View. You said:
“I object to those who insist that their way is the only way and other voices must not only be ignored, but silenced.”

The landlords in fact did just that prior to CSFRA. To them you did it their way or leave. So again you are not proving that your point of view is substantiated by your own actions. Look up the concept of the Doctrine of Clean Hands: found here (Web Link So unless you can PROVE that you have no taken actions to exploit the customers, you cannot complain that they take actions to correct for it. You said:

“Too many people in this area assume they are the only voice that should exist and all others should be silenced.”

Not silenced, but also not empowered to cause more harm from the exploitive actions of those he is paid to advocate. You said:

“These same people accuse others of being Nazis and all manner of terrible things.”
Only statement is that the citizens of Mountain View have the right to be represented by the City Council, NOT THE PRIVATE INTERESTS AS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT. You said:

“Yet one of the first things the Nazis did was silence opposition.”

Again, he has the first amendment right to advocate as a private citizen, but once you take hold of public office, your conduct is controlled by the code of conduct and the oath of office. He clearly has a record of violating the code of conduct and will do so if given the chance. You can find it here (Web Link You said:

“It is not too much to ask that the council have one voice that doesn't sing the same tired tune.”

No one said that, we say that his corruption should be prevented by the voters. That is all.

Five more people running for a seat on the Mountain View Development Agency, I mean "City Council". If Inks is a true Libertarian, we can be sure he would be all for repeal of the Heritage tree ordinance. Is there any candidate out there than values quality of life over rapid, uncontrolled development?

Glad to see a voice of reason running for City Council. It needs a lot more reason and a lot less unsound ideology.

The vote is in. After his promotion of landlords' fraudulent initiative petition, Inks has four supporters in Mountain View - counting himself.

Mountain view used to be a hometown. Now it is vagrants, High density low budget housing, traffic and bad schools. Nice job to our city officials. Anyone working on a third term needs to go!!! Vote.

@TBM

Bravo for your ability to take another person's words and twist them, then attack what you have twisted.

John Inks is a private citizen right now and, as such, has the right to support anything he darn well pleases. Nothing you have said gives any actual evidence that he has done anything to change my mind.

As for your nonsensical attacks on landlords, perhaps you should consider that you have no right to ask your employer for higher wages, since that causes inflation in the price of goods and services and all the other evils you decry. Those landlords worked and earned the money for those buildings and have right to earn a decent living by renting them. It's a business, not a public service. If you think the rent is too high, then move. I would expect a "Business Man" to know that. Why should the housing crisis be balanced on the back of the landlords? They are citizens too.

If you enjoy attacking the overbuilding and lack of services in this city, you should look to the actual sell-outs, which comprise the majority of the current city council. They are the ones approving the building without infrastructure to go with it. They are ones selling water rights for a pittance, then adding thousands of extra residents (who are all apparently part camel, since the council seems to think they don't need water). They are the ones who expect adjacent communities to provide services to make up for their ill-advised decisions. They are the one saying one thing then doing another to get elected (like Rosenberg and Showalter supporting the VTA takeover of El Camino for an empty bus only lane after running and getting elected by opposing it).

I guess bad behavior is excusable as long as you are playing on the same team, at least in your eyes. If that's how you play, then support who you like, but don't try to put a stake in the moral high ground, because you are planting it in sand.

In response to psr you said:

‘As for your nonsensical attacks on landlords, perhaps you should consider that you have no right to ask your employer for higher wages, since that causes inflation in the price of goods and services and all the other evils you decry.”

Since renters services can increase in value radically over a short time, their earnings are entitled to rise, your argument simply doesn’t make sense. Especially if the apartments are not being “improved” in any way. You said:

“Those landlords worked and earned the money for those buildings and have right to earn a decent living by renting them. It's a business, not a public service. If you think the rent is too high, then move. I would expect a "Business Man" to know that. Why should the housing crisis be balanced on the back of the landlords? They are citizens too.”

Since they are in a “free-market” there is no way to expect that “every” apartment is entitled to a “profit”. This is the false premise made by the various private landlords, real estate, investors and developers. I cannot believe that anyone can claim that no matter how poorly a decision was made in getting into the business, they should be insured to make a profit. Especially if they made no improvements on the property. The simple truth is that some landlords raised rents simply after purchase of the property without making any changes to the units. That is not justified and anyone would find it questionable to impose the costs of a purchase on those who were not parties of the transaction.

I will not address rest you wrote because you are entitled to your opinion, I simply do not fully agree with your opinion respectfully. But if you feel that rents should grow the pace of earnings, you should also be required to proportionately improve the apartments that the tenants are living in at the same time.

He cant be worse then Lenny Siegel

The City provides about a dozen sites at which candidates may post campaign signs. Some years ago, city law was amended to make it a crime to remove or deface campaign signs legally posted. I see that John Inks signs have been defaced. I assume it is the work of one disgruntled constituent. But it is illegal and wrong. Anyone that favors or opposes a candidate is free to say so. Post your own sigbs. Write letters to editors. Distribute flyers. Ask questions at candidate forums. But don't deface signs or steal flyers. We need more discussion and debate - not to silence persons with whom we disagree.